Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
#76
LRT construction on Caroline in Uptown is going full steam ahead today; i'm quite surprised as seems pretty rare for a construction project in our Region to work outside of business hours.
Reply


#77
Maybe they want something tangible in place before election day.
Reply
#78
(10-24-2014, 07:45 PM)mpd618 Wrote: There was never a meaningful referendum question to be asked, as The Record pointed out quite well when the issue was at Regional Council.

The kinds of transit referendums that have been useful are strict yes/no questions about new funding streams. E.g. do you support an extra sales tax of 0.5% to support a long-term transit plan (the details of which are decided separately). Once you get into shades of grey, you're mired in decades of decision-making and building nothing. Except more roads and sprawl, which apparently never need a referendum.

That Record article was pretty dismissive, not to mention insulting. Is it wrong for a politician to say, "You know, this project seems to be out of the scope of what I should be deciding for my constituents, maybe I should seek their direct approval?" Or are the citizens expected to speak up once, at the ballot box, and then shut up between elections? The politicians and staff seemed pretty sure of themselves throughout the consultation process that the majority of the population supported this plan, so what was the risk of putting it to a yes/no vote?  

As for a lack of a meaningful question, why not a referendum that asked the same question that Council was asked earlier this year (That is, "Do you support Stage 1 of the LRT project?")? It would have been simple and straightforward.  If the proponents had made a good enough case, their side would have carried the day.

As for the $1 million projected referendum price tag, since Ken Seiling considers paying $1.3 million to Guelph each year in Green Bin losses to be "In the overall scheme of the regional budget, it's not a huge amount, but it's still a significant amount," holding one, simple, referendum to get confirmation of a nearly $2 billion investment wouldn't bankrupt the public purse.

Or even better, what about a referendum question like, "Do you approve of 0.5% sales tax to improve transportation in our Region over the long-term?" after a few years of consultation to discuss what projects might be eligible for improvements?

I would rather have a decade or two of discussion to get the plan right, rather than pay for mistakes later.  As it is, this plan has been in public consultation for 9 years and, if we're to believe the politicians, been part of Regional planning since 1973. Instead of haveing the courage to pitch a fully-funded, multi-stage plan to the voters, what we'll be left with is a half-built LRT plan with aBRT tacked on for show that has no tangible funding plan for the second LRT phase beyond, "We hope that the higher levels of government will pay for it".

The Swiss seemed to have done something right in Zurich with their S-Bahn system. The system plan was put to referendum three times before the third version was accepted in 1983.  The system is now launching its fourth expansion since 1983. I wonder whether the Region will be ever be able to match that speed for future ION expansion.
Reply
#79
So should we just have a cut-off where anything over a $100 million is put to a vote? Vote on every single expensive highway widening and everything else too if it's just about the amount of money. Where's the fully-funded, multi-stage plan for paying for the existing road repair backlog and insatiable appetite for new roads in new suburbs? Why do we need 20 years to hum and haw about building transit? It's not like robot cars are actually going to be a real thing in the next 20 years. The original LRT plan was adjusted to suit public opinion that building the whole thing at once was too expensive so it was tweaked without the need for an actual referendum. It also kind of makes sense to build the ridership in Cambridge like it was built-up in KW with express buses.
Reply
#80
I hate when people bring up referendums. They're called elections. We live in a society where we have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. You pick a person to represent you. Direct democracies have been deemed too inefficient time and time again.
Reply
#81
(10-26-2014, 09:08 AM)clasher Wrote: So should we just have a cut-off where anything over a $100 million is put to a vote? Vote on every single expensive highway widening and everything else too if it's just about the amount of money. Where's the fully-funded, multi-stage plan for paying for the existing road repair backlog and insatiable appetite for new roads in new suburbs? Why do we need 20 years to hum and haw about building transit? It's not like robot cars are actually going to be a real thing in the next 20 years. The original LRT plan was adjusted to suit public opinion that building the whole thing at once was too expensive so it was tweaked without the need for an actual referendum. It also kind of makes sense to build the ridership in Cambridge like it was built-up in KW with express buses.

As soon as that became law you can expect that every project would just get cut up into two "separate" projects that stay under the threshold.
Reply
#82
(10-26-2014, 10:06 AM)Spokes Wrote: I hate when people bring up referendums.  They're called elections.  We live in a society where we have a REPRESENTATIVE democracy.  You pick a person to represent you.  Direct democracies have been deemed too inefficient time and time again.

Exactly. I hated the referendum on fluoridation since I have absolutely no clue if fluoride in water is good or not, nor do I have the time to educate myself. I would trust city councilors to engage with experts in the field, reach a well reasoned conclusion and I'm happy to go along with it.
Reply


#83
You're not the only one with no clue about fluoridation - just look at all the folks in Waterloo who voted against continuing it!
Reply
#84
Not that I agree a referendum was warranted or that alternatives like BRT would actually be cheaper in the long run, but consider...

Even if we all agree that a referendum on the LRT was warranted in the last election it's too late to have one in this election because even if the LRT is rejected by a wide margin and the region wants to back out it will cost more in cancellation charges than could have been saved by going with the alternatives.
Reply
#85
Governance by referendum is a disaster wherever it has been used.

Example 1: Education funding in the U.S. held at the city/town level has given them the most bizarre and failing system in the world and IMO the worst education in the western world.

Example 2: California has referendums on the most ridiculous issues  at every level of governance and they have micro-management referendums on how many dollars can or will be spent on budgets and projects. ( their voting level is not much better than Ontario or Kitchener or Cambridge) California has gone from a progressive state to a state paralyzed at every level by referendums on every subject.

There are many, many more examples.

Canada/Ontario/Waterloo Region/Kitchener/Waterloo/Wilmot/Cambridge needs to learn from the efforts to paralyze governance called referendums rather than empower our elected officials to govern on our behalf which is what our non-republic, democratic process is founded upon.
Reply
#86
(10-26-2014, 01:41 AM)nms Wrote: That Record article was pretty dismissive, not to mention insulting. Is it wrong for a politician to say, "You know, this project seems to be out of the scope of what I should be deciding for my constituents, maybe I should seek their direct approval?" Or are the citizens expected to speak up once, at the ballot box, and then shut up between elections? The politicians and staff seemed pretty sure of themselves throughout the consultation process that the majority of the population supported this plan, so what was the risk of putting it to a yes/no vote?  

As for a lack of a meaningful question, why not a referendum that asked the same question that Council was asked earlier this year (That is, "Do you support Stage 1 of the LRT project?")? It would have been simple and straightforward.  If the proponents had made a good enough case, their side would have carried the day.

And if the answer was "no", there would have been no clear direction on what the government is supposed to do. That's the problem. Then the council would have to figure out if they should do a different route, a different technology, no rapid transit at all, invest in lots of new roads instead, etc. Keep in mind that the LRT is primarily a mechanism to achieve the Regional Official Plan's intensification goals - and it's unclear that those goals can be achieved without higher-order transit along the central corridor. Or should the Official Plan also be up for a referendum?


(10-26-2014, 01:41 AM)nms Wrote: Or even better, what about a referendum question like, "Do you approve of 0.5% sales tax to improve transportation in our Region over the long-term?" after a few years of consultation to discuss what projects might be eligible for improvements?

I would rather have a decade or two of discussion to get the plan right, rather than pay for mistakes later.  As it is, this plan has been in public consultation for 9 years and, if we're to believe the politicians, been part of Regional planning since 1973. Instead of haveing the courage to pitch a fully-funded, multi-stage plan to the voters, what we'll be left with is a half-built LRT plan with aBRT tacked on for show that has no tangible funding plan for the second LRT phase beyond, "We hope that the higher levels of government will pay for it".

The Region doesn't have the power to levy a sales tax, so it would be a completely arbitrary decision to say that this project needs a referendum for its property tax impact, whereas other regional infrastructure doesn't and (apparently) neither does the alternative of building lots more roads to support sprawl.

The best way to get a "full" system is to start with a system that works, attracts new development, grows ridership, and which proves public demand. After that you have a much easier time building extensions. As for funding for the line all the way to Cambridge, asking for that much funding from the upper levels of government at once would have very likely resulted in zero funding. In fact, I suspect those conversations happened during the years of planning for the system.
Reply
#87
As the dust settles on election night, I'm glad that there is enough turnover around the Council table to keep things fresh. It's unfortunate that elements of the election campaign turned so ugly.

To answer a few of the comments above, yes, I still think that a referendum on projects that will fundamentally change the way we live is perfectly valid. Typically elections serve as a stand-in for a referendum: vote for me and I'll do X, if you don't like it vote for the other candidate. If a few of the candidates in the 2010 election had been a little more honest about how they would vote on the LRT rather than splitting hairs, there may have been different results then. Instead, we ended up with scare tactics this time about what might be lost if we didn't continue to pursue the LRT path.

On a funding note, when will we have a politician at any level (federal, provincial or locally) admit that we have deferred maintenance for too long on our infrastructure projects and unless taxes are raised, things are going to get worse. The LRT will likely remain in tip-top shape since we have guaranteed payments and guaranteed service standards, but what else will continue to be punted down the line to keep taxes low?

Don't expect the tax conversation to get easier either. As the baby boomers head for retirement, I expect that we'll hear more stories about seniors on fixed incomes being unable to afford any tax increases.

We'll have to wait and see which "I told you so"s come true after 2017.
Reply
#88
(10-27-2014, 11:50 PM)nms Wrote: To answer a few of the comments above, yes, I still think that a referendum on projects that will fundamentally change the way we live is perfectly valid.

Change will happen, referendum or not. The choices were gridlock with loud buses going by on King every three minutes or an LRT that is so quiet in most places it requires chimes to announce itself to pedestrian traffic.

Is that the type of question one asks in a referendum? of course not.
Reply


#89
(10-27-2014, 11:50 PM)nms Wrote: On a funding note, when will we have a politician at any level (federal, provincial or locally) admit that we have deferred maintenance for too long on our infrastructure projects and unless taxes are raised, things are going to get worse.

Don't know about you, but I see all the municipalities talking about "infrastructure deficit", and adopting asset management programs. Waterloo Region specifically has been spending hundreds of millions of dollars on renovating some of its biggest infrastructure - the wastewaster treatment system.

As a reminder, LRT and intensification helps local municipalities reduce the growth of new infrastructure so we are not facing as bad of a problem in 50 years as we have now with infrastructure renewal.
Reply
#90
By the way, the anti-LRT candidate in Hamilton was also defeated, with pro-LRT candidates receiving twice as many votes. It seems that most people do get it, with the exception of a few "get off my lawn types".
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 10 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links